Quote from: robertross on 04/19/2011 09:49 pmQuote from: simonbp on 04/19/2011 09:47 pmQuote from: vt_hokie on 04/19/2011 07:22 pmIt's technically possible, but not currently on the horizon, to make up for lost shuttle capabilities with a combination of new systems. But what would it take to enable replacement of, say, ISS solar arrays, SARJ units, etc? The combination of cargo and crew, and the shuttle's remote manipulator system, add a unique capability. Except that the station already does have an (even more capable) arm, and, depending on the size, there are several option for getting any of those components to station. HTV, Cygnus, and standard Dragon can bring any of the smaller components, while Dragon on a Falcon Heavy could launch an entire node if needed.And all of them are at least four times cheaper than a shuttle flight. That's superior.QuoteAlso, as mentioned, there is the downmass capability that's being lost.Which is used for what, exactly? Besides LDEF and Solar Max (both kinda stunts), what downmass won't fit in a Dragon?You know what, I'll leave that one to vt_hokie...I've done this rant for far too long now (years)Me too... simonbp can bloody well search our past posts for the answer to this. I know he's been a member long enough to have seen at least one of mine.
Quote from: simonbp on 04/19/2011 09:47 pmQuote from: vt_hokie on 04/19/2011 07:22 pmIt's technically possible, but not currently on the horizon, to make up for lost shuttle capabilities with a combination of new systems. But what would it take to enable replacement of, say, ISS solar arrays, SARJ units, etc? The combination of cargo and crew, and the shuttle's remote manipulator system, add a unique capability. Except that the station already does have an (even more capable) arm, and, depending on the size, there are several option for getting any of those components to station. HTV, Cygnus, and standard Dragon can bring any of the smaller components, while Dragon on a Falcon Heavy could launch an entire node if needed.And all of them are at least four times cheaper than a shuttle flight. That's superior.QuoteAlso, as mentioned, there is the downmass capability that's being lost.Which is used for what, exactly? Besides LDEF and Solar Max (both kinda stunts), what downmass won't fit in a Dragon?You know what, I'll leave that one to vt_hokie...I've done this rant for far too long now (years)
Quote from: vt_hokie on 04/19/2011 07:22 pmIt's technically possible, but not currently on the horizon, to make up for lost shuttle capabilities with a combination of new systems. But what would it take to enable replacement of, say, ISS solar arrays, SARJ units, etc? The combination of cargo and crew, and the shuttle's remote manipulator system, add a unique capability. Except that the station already does have an (even more capable) arm, and, depending on the size, there are several option for getting any of those components to station. HTV, Cygnus, and standard Dragon can bring any of the smaller components, while Dragon on a Falcon Heavy could launch an entire node if needed.And all of them are at least four times cheaper than a shuttle flight. That's superior.QuoteAlso, as mentioned, there is the downmass capability that's being lost.Which is used for what, exactly? Besides LDEF and Solar Max (both kinda stunts), what downmass won't fit in a Dragon?
It's technically possible, but not currently on the horizon, to make up for lost shuttle capabilities with a combination of new systems. But what would it take to enable replacement of, say, ISS solar arrays, SARJ units, etc? The combination of cargo and crew, and the shuttle's remote manipulator system, add a unique capability.
Also, as mentioned, there is the downmass capability that's being lost.
Is the CCDev-2 press conference archived anywhere?
Quote from: simonbp on 04/19/2011 09:47 pmQuoteAlso, as mentioned, there is the downmass capability that's being lost.Which is used for what, exactly? Besides LDEF (kind of a stunt), what downmass won't fit in a Dragon?You have failed or depleted ORU's which can be returned to the ground, investigated using all magnitudes of equipment/skilled technicians on the ground, refurbished, and then replaced. SO one can actually enhance and learn from onorbit experience rather than simply accept the idea of having to toss a component out without understanding what went wrong. I bet many people on the ground will appreciate the fact that the failed pump module is going to be returned, and might even be launched again.
QuoteAlso, as mentioned, there is the downmass capability that's being lost.Which is used for what, exactly? Besides LDEF (kind of a stunt), what downmass won't fit in a Dragon?
Quote from: Downix on 04/19/2011 11:34 pmQuote from: RocketScientist327 on 04/19/2011 11:33 pmQuote from: mr. mark on 04/19/2011 11:23 pmI'm going to try to say this with class for a man who has given much of his life to reporting on NASA. He is part of the old guard and he may be out of touch with current thinking. I could get mad and say more but, it would only make me look bad. Personally, I'm slightly mifted at the man. When he was reporting at the pre flight conference for COTS 1, he kept saying that Dragon/Falcon would overfly Europe putting the continent at risk. Then he called Gwynne Shotwell "sir".I do not care for him or his reporting... this goes back to the early 80s. I just hope he gets to cover Falcon and Dragon HSF. I hope I can personally ask him how that neophyte SpaceX is doing. Or Boeing. Or SNC. Or Blue Origin.I simply do not care.He wants Liberty. No frakking thank you.The builder of the Apollo capsule a Neophyte? A company in business since 1963, a neophyte?Oh, more than that.McDonnell-Douglas, builder of Mercury, Gemini, the Delta family, Saturn S-IVB stage, Skylab, and one of the contractors for Space Station Freedom (now ISS), is now part of Boeing.Rockwell, builder of the Saturn S-II stage, Apollo CSM, and Space Shuttle Orbiter, is now part of Boeing.Boeing in its own right was the builder for the Saturn S-IC stage, a contractor for Space Station Freedom, and prime contractor for ISS.Boeing was teamed with Northrup-Grumman for the CEV contract, and the CST-100 has at least some design heritage from their losing bid.So Boeing has at least some heritage to every NASA manned spacecraft, with the exception of the Apollo LM.
Quote from: RocketScientist327 on 04/19/2011 11:33 pmQuote from: mr. mark on 04/19/2011 11:23 pmI'm going to try to say this with class for a man who has given much of his life to reporting on NASA. He is part of the old guard and he may be out of touch with current thinking. I could get mad and say more but, it would only make me look bad. Personally, I'm slightly mifted at the man. When he was reporting at the pre flight conference for COTS 1, he kept saying that Dragon/Falcon would overfly Europe putting the continent at risk. Then he called Gwynne Shotwell "sir".I do not care for him or his reporting... this goes back to the early 80s. I just hope he gets to cover Falcon and Dragon HSF. I hope I can personally ask him how that neophyte SpaceX is doing. Or Boeing. Or SNC. Or Blue Origin.I simply do not care.He wants Liberty. No frakking thank you.The builder of the Apollo capsule a Neophyte? A company in business since 1963, a neophyte?
Quote from: mr. mark on 04/19/2011 11:23 pmI'm going to try to say this with class for a man who has given much of his life to reporting on NASA. He is part of the old guard and he may be out of touch with current thinking. I could get mad and say more but, it would only make me look bad. Personally, I'm slightly mifted at the man. When he was reporting at the pre flight conference for COTS 1, he kept saying that Dragon/Falcon would overfly Europe putting the continent at risk. Then he called Gwynne Shotwell "sir".I do not care for him or his reporting... this goes back to the early 80s. I just hope he gets to cover Falcon and Dragon HSF. I hope I can personally ask him how that neophyte SpaceX is doing. Or Boeing. Or SNC. Or Blue Origin.I simply do not care.He wants Liberty. No frakking thank you.
I'm going to try to say this with class for a man who has given much of his life to reporting on NASA. He is part of the old guard and he may be out of touch with current thinking. I could get mad and say more but, it would only make me look bad. Personally, I'm slightly mifted at the man. When he was reporting at the pre flight conference for COTS 1, he kept saying that Dragon/Falcon would overfly Europe putting the continent at risk. Then he called Gwynne Shotwell "sir".
Quote from: Proponent on 04/20/2011 02:32 amIs the CCDev-2 press conference archived anywhere?May be here. L-1 Day -- Thursday, April 28 11 a.m. -- CCDev2 Briefing - Participants TBDhttp://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/news/134_hours_events.htm
For the pump module, if it fits through Quest and CBM,
Quote from: Jorge on 04/20/2011 02:29 amQuote from: Downix on 04/19/2011 11:34 pmQuote from: RocketScientist327 on 04/19/2011 11:33 pmQuote from: mr. mark on 04/19/2011 11:23 pmI'm going to try to say this with class for a man who has given much of his life to reporting on NASA. He is part of the old guard and he may be out of touch with current thinking. I could get mad and say more but, it would only make me look bad. Personally, I'm slightly mifted at the man. When he was reporting at the pre flight conference for COTS 1, he kept saying that Dragon/Falcon would overfly Europe putting the continent at risk. Then he called Gwynne Shotwell "sir".I do not care for him or his reporting... this goes back to the early 80s. I just hope he gets to cover Falcon and Dragon HSF. I hope I can personally ask him how that neophyte SpaceX is doing. Or Boeing. Or SNC. Or Blue Origin.I simply do not care.He wants Liberty. No frakking thank you.The builder of the Apollo capsule a Neophyte? A company in business since 1963, a neophyte?Oh, more than that.McDonnell-Douglas, builder of Mercury, Gemini, the Delta family, Saturn S-IVB stage, Skylab, and one of the contractors for Space Station Freedom (now ISS), is now part of Boeing.Rockwell, builder of the Saturn S-II stage, Apollo CSM, and Space Shuttle Orbiter, is now part of Boeing.Boeing in its own right was the builder for the Saturn S-IC stage, a contractor for Space Station Freedom, and prime contractor for ISS.Boeing was teamed with Northrup-Grumman for the CEV contract, and the CST-100 has at least some design heritage from their losing bid.So Boeing has at least some heritage to every NASA manned spacecraft, with the exception of the Apollo LM.In his article, Barbree made an exception for Boeing. He said that they were the only ones that were not neophytes.
And he would be wrong there as well, considering Sierra Nevada almost 50 year history.
Quote from: Downix on 04/20/2011 02:10 pmAnd he would be wrong there as well, considering Sierra Nevada almost 50 year history. Sierra Nevada only acquired SpaceDev in December 2008. But SpaceDev had been founded by Jim Benson in 1997.
Is a lifting body a "winged" vehicle?
Wow, Jay Barbree in this article/editorial (not sure which it is) seems to be pretty unhappy with CCDev and is particularly unhappy that ATK wasn't chosen:"NASA's future depends on spaceflight neophytes"
Quote from: agman25 on 04/20/2011 08:48 pmIs a lifting body a "winged" vehicle?Good question, but regardless, I agree with the previous post. There's something more dignified about a runway landing than fishing a capsule out of the ocean.
